My intention here is not to get into a political debate here in this post. I am just wondering about that old truth: "The Law of Unintended Consequences" and how it is going to show up in the government's response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Did we wreck the economy and maybe create joblessness and homelessness for untold millions of otherwise healthy folk for the sake of saving 50 to 100 thousand of vulnerable people.
Sometimes risk versus lives saved becomes more than pragmatic and seemingly heartless. But allowing people the freedom to drive cars entails and acceptable risk. Deaths are weighed against freedoms. If, say air travel became more dangerous would it be curtailed?
Sometimes risk versus lives saved becomes more than pragmatic and seemingly heartless. But allowing people the freedom to drive cars entails and acceptable risk. Deaths are weighed against freedoms. If, say air travel became more dangerous would it be curtailed?
Did we give away freedoms and rights that were fought and died for by millions of soldiers for the sake of staving off a pandemic that costs lives to be sure, but at what price?
We tore up the American constitution for sure. The first amendment was dolefully complied with and thus became archaic and meaningless in practical terms. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The issue is not whether it was the right thing to do the issue is that it simply was done. Whether or not this was a national emergency or war was never defined just assumed and submitted to by "we the people." Just for context, more people died in protests at Kent State than protesting mandatory lockdowns.
The government gave away money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. Did anyone bother to count the cost? Was the cure worse than the disease?
No comments:
Post a Comment